Tuesday, November 23, 2021

Probably not a problem in the US, We could sic the IRS on them.

https://www.cpomagazine.com/data-protection/issuing-gdpr-fines-is-one-thing-collecting-them-is-another-uk-ico-struggling-to-enforce-actions-as-74-of-penalties-remain-unpaid/

Issuing GDPR Fines Is One Thing, Collecting Them Is Another; UK ICO Struggling To Enforce Actions as 74% Of Penalties Remain Unpaid

The UK’s Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) has not been afraid to issue some heavy General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) fines to the likes of Google, British Airways and Marriott for their assorted data leaks and breaches in recent years. Issuing a GDPR fine is just the first step, however; at some point it needs to be collected, or the process is meaningless.

That second part is apparently where ICO is running into some serious difficulty, with 74% of the GDPR fines issued by the agency since the start of 2020 remaining unpaid. TheSMSWorks has collected numbers that indicate the problem is tilted more to smaller companies than larger ones, with SMS and phone spammers frequently dragging out the appeals process for years or simply outright refusing to pay.



The Feds must really want facial recognition tools. Who new there were so many options?

https://www.nytimes.com/2021/11/23/technology/clearview-facial-recognition-accuracy.html

Clearview AI does well in another round of facial recognition accuracy tests.

After Clearview AI scraped billions of photos from the public web — from websites including Instagram, Venmo and LinkedIn — to create a facial recognition tool for law enforcement authorities, many concerns were raised about the company and its norm-breaking tool. Beyond the privacy implications and legality of what Clearview AI had done, there were questions about whether the tool worked as advertised: Could the company actually find one particular person’s face out of a database of billions?

In results announced on Monday, Clearview, which is based in New York, placed among the top 10 out of nearly 100 facial recognition vendors in a federal test intended to reveal which tools are best at finding the right face while looking through photos of millions of people. Clearview performed less well in another version of the test, which simulates using facial recognition for providing access to buildings, such as verifying that someone is an employee.

the top performers were SenseTime, a Chinese company, and Cubox, from South Korea.



For your amusement…

https://www.bespacific.com/were-making-the-facebook-papers-public/

We’re Making the Facebook Papers Public

Gizmodo – Here’s Why and How – “Independent experts from NYU, UMass Amherst, Columbia, Marquette, and the ACLU are partnering with Gizmodo to responsibly publish this historic leak. In one of Silicon Valley’s largest leaks, a former Facebook product manager slipped financial regulators stacks of documents containing thousands of confidential memos, chat logs, and a veritable library of hidden research. The leak was designed to convince the feds that the gravity and scope of Facebook’s design flaws and misdeeds vastly exceed anything its executives ever divulged to their investors. The documents, captured by whistleblower Frances Haugen and first reported by the Wall Street Journal, were also handed to members of a Senate Commerce subcommittee chaired by Sen. Richard Blumenthal, a Democrat of Connecticut who last month called Instagram “a breeding ground for eating disorders and self harm.” And it’s from here that Gizmodo and some 300 other mostly Western journalists derived their access. We believe there’s a strong public need in making as many of the documents public as possible, as quickly as possible. To that end, we’ve partnered with a small group of independent monitors, who are joining us to establish guidelines for an accountable review of the documents prior to publication. The mission is to minimize any costs to individuals’ privacy or the furtherance of other harms while ensuring the responsible disclosure of the greatest amount of information in the public interest…”


No comments: